|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 29 2012 13:51 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 13:42 TheStonerer wrote:On February 29 2012 13:14 xmaine wrote:
So because statistics show that you wont ever need a weapon to defend a home invader means that you shouldn't own a weapon?
People will have weapons regardless if it is legal or not. So then law abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves while the criminals will have open season on these people.
Law enforcement does not protect people. They only come in after something happens. They don't prevent these things from happening.
And yes, you have a choice to not own a gun. But you shouldn't punish law abiders just because others misuse their weapons. And having that gun locked away in your house helps you prevents an intruder to shoot you how? You'll just get shot in the back while you scramble to unlock your firearm. You won't even have a chance to get to it probably. Funnily, a lot of people from the USA are really emotional and kneejerk reaction replaces logical thought, most often than not. The accessibility than the US provides regarding guns is clearly a factor in the number of crimes committed. And like I said earlier, even if you were allowed to carry a gun in public anywhere, chances are you still wouldn't be able to use it. As someone also said, you have to consider the fact that if everyone could carry a gun in public, one lone crazy gunman would create much more chaos as everyone could get their gun out and start shooting like an idiot. How do you know who is the real shooter when there are 10 people with guns pointing them at each other. If weapons didn't exist the world would be a better place. Sadly that'll never happen  You can carry a gun in public without any sort of license as long as it's completely visible. It's just that not many do it. Most people who carry have a concealed weapon permit and you will never see the weapon.
Ok, thank you for the clarification. Did you want to imply something else?
|
On February 29 2012 13:54 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 13:33 relyt wrote:On February 29 2012 01:42 Krowser wrote:
Carrying a gun was a sensible option 150 years ago when your farm could be attacked by bandits and no one was there to help you.
Hence why it's in the American Constitution. Every man should be allowed to defend himself.
Nowadays it's an enabler for senseless murder. The latest example being the Ohio shooting.
And over here they are trying to get rid of the Gun registry.. why!? You don't live in rural areas do you? Where I grew up, we were in the middle of nowhere. The only defense against wolves, bears, humans, and anything really was self-defense. There are about 2 cops working at a time. In detroit I hear reports of police taking hours to show up to a call. People still don't help even these days. A good defense is making a lot of noise to scare the animal. Just so you know. Animals are not that bloodthirsty and guns are not the only defense against animals. In Detroit, the problem is the poverty, which lead to higher crime rates, just like poor areas make people "stupid" because they have no adequate education. It is not only the people, it is the environment in which they grow up that shapes them. In my opinion, the gun factor regarding Detroit does not apply to this discussion, since there are much more issues to consider regarding that city's situation.
Noise will not scare away a burglar from robbing your home and it might not always stop a wolf from attacking your herd of cattle. I think detroit is very relevant. Just because there are other problems going on does not take away from the fact that the police force is too underfunded to help people in need. When you are in trouble and nobody will help you, the only option is to rely on yourself. I agree we need to adress the problems of poverty in the inner-cities, but that is whole nother topic.
|
On February 29 2012 14:33 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 13:54 TheStonerer wrote:On February 29 2012 13:33 relyt wrote:On February 29 2012 01:42 Krowser wrote:
Carrying a gun was a sensible option 150 years ago when your farm could be attacked by bandits and no one was there to help you.
Hence why it's in the American Constitution. Every man should be allowed to defend himself.
Nowadays it's an enabler for senseless murder. The latest example being the Ohio shooting.
And over here they are trying to get rid of the Gun registry.. why!? You don't live in rural areas do you? Where I grew up, we were in the middle of nowhere. The only defense against wolves, bears, humans, and anything really was self-defense. There are about 2 cops working at a time. In detroit I hear reports of police taking hours to show up to a call. People still don't help even these days. A good defense is making a lot of noise to scare the animal. Just so you know. Animals are not that bloodthirsty and guns are not the only defense against animals. In Detroit, the problem is the poverty, which lead to higher crime rates, just like poor areas make people "stupid" because they have no adequate education. It is not only the people, it is the environment in which they grow up that shapes them. In my opinion, the gun factor regarding Detroit does not apply to this discussion, since there are much more issues to consider regarding that city's situation. Noise will not scare away a burglar from robbing your home and it might not always stop a wolf from attacking your herd of cattle. I think detroit is very relevant. Just because there are other problems going on does not take away from the fact that the police force is too underfunded to help people in need. When you are in trouble and nobody will help you, the only option is to rely on yourself. I agree we need to adress the problems of poverty in the inner-cities, but that is whole nother topic.
Um actually, noise will scare off most burglars. 99.99% of burglars want things to sell or money, not to kill and rape your family. Posing a legitimate threat to their safety will likely make the situation escalate way beyond what it would be if you made some noise and called the cops.
Are Americans really that scared of random untargeted home invasions with the intention of murdering your family and raping your wife? Like, the rate at which this happens is so incredibly low, its mind boggling to me that this is a legitimate worry to this many people. Escalating a situation will net more injuries or deaths than just making noise, letting them run off with your tv and getting a new one from your insurance company. Why would you even go to confront them?
The level of misguided pride that is displayed by a lot of these posts is nauseating. "YOU AINT TAKIN MAH PROPERTEHHHH". Its clear that your whole culture and system is so flawed its likely beyond repair over any short period of time. Your citizens walk around scared, you arm yourselves, kids get ahold of these weapons and kill themselves or people in their schools, your firearm related rates for everything bad are extremely high, yet people fervently cling to this idea that guns make people safe.
The gun culture being allowed to proliferate to the point its at, the terrible distribution of wealth leaving so many poor, and the fear that is implanted in your hearts is a dangerous combo, and there truly is no way to solve your problems without you thinking that the government is trying to disarm you so they can take over your lives. So confusing.
|
Gun ownership for self defense is much more sane that time-rationed healthcare...
|
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 17:24 dogabutila wrote:
What parts do you think you actually need? What parts would you ban. Tell me now. Because I doubt you'd be banning metal. And you know what? Why not just arrest them when they rob and assault somebody? How would you know they are manufacturing guns in their basement anyways? You clearly are out of touch with reality and need to learn about, examine, and gain experience in subjects before your replies make any sort of sense. Are you serious? A gun is a precision made device. You'd require a machine shop at the very least, you wouldn't need to ban metal. Like I said before, you won't be doing precision machine work in your basement metal or no metal.
Don't be daft. People have been making firearms for hundreds of years. Thousands even if you count old Chinese gunpowder arms. The principal is very simple, and people have been making improvised firearms in their homes for fun for a loooong time. Hell, people even made firearms during pre-america periods! Did they have machine shops nope? Do we have better tools then they did back then? Yep.
When thinking about America, remember that the spirit of curiosity is well and alive. A guy made an AR lower out of wood. Yes. Wood. In his home. And it shoots too. Guns in modern times are precision made devices, but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to be. Like I said, The sten was designed to be built in makeshift workshops with tools that a decently handsy person would have at home.
Then there are improvised firearms, ie zip guns. Cap guns and flare guns have also been redesigned into functional firearms. Again, the more you post the more glaringly obvious it is that you have little to no experience and knowledge of firearms.
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 06:59 liberal wrote:On February 27 2012 05:24 Usul wrote:On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So everybody should be allowed to own nuclear bombs and killer viruses... . It's not illegal to be HIV positive, and nuclear power plants which have the capacity for a nuclear disaster can be privately owned, so technically those things are legal to own already and exist within society. In any case, if we are talking about the means to self defense, I really hope you don't need me to articulate the differences between a handgun, and say, a nuclear warhead or deadly virus. A weapon of "mass destruction" cannot be used "responsibly." These are two of the worst strawman fallacies I have ever seen. You can't compare accidental infection with a virus to a biological weapon designed to infect/kill multiple people. You might argue that people deliberately infect others, but that doesn't adequately speak to the intent, or how the virus was obtained. Nobody deliberately infects themselves with HIV, so it's impossible to speak to an intent. Obtaining a biological weapon is with the intent of using it to kill. You also can't compare technology designed for the purposes of energy production with technology designed for mass destruction. Notwithstanding the fact that nuclear reactors must be up to code to be legally operated, privately or otherwise, and that code includes moderators that absorb neutrons which prevent fission from chain reacting out of control. The point is these things do not already exist within society, such weapons are incredibly tightly regulated. Why? Because regardless of how they might be responsibly used, they can cause mass destruction if they are abused. This is also true of a handgun with or without hollow point bullets. How it can be "responsibly" used (responsible = kill someone who enters your house, ROFL), is irrelevant, because the fact is you can hide a handgun on your person, take it to a club/restaurant/church/train or other crowded venue, and use it to kill 20+ people easily. This isn't speculation on my part, this has happened in your country multiple times already. My question then is why are handguns (and even more destructive weapons) allowed when there is already a precedent in your country for regulating weapons that can cause mass destruction if abused?
Responsibly used? Self defense. The same way a country uses an army. You don't go use it to assault people, you use it to defend your own country and your friends.
I'm glad you brought up the fact that guns have been used in mass murder. Why? Because these are invariably illegal guns or possessed by people not cleared to own them. In effect, a restriction on who can own guns didn't stop them. Then, the vast majority of the places these happened at were in 'gun free zones' Obviously the sign did not magically stop the shooter from bringing his gun in. Banning guns wouldn't make current ones not exist. Even if there were no guns in the entire world right now, the knowledge and principals still exist and people could create their own relatively simply. It's far better to give people the ability to defend themselves instead of to hope that everything will be okay and rely on the government to save you.
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 20:54 dogabutila wrote:On February 27 2012 20:42 TanTzoR wrote:On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So bad argument. NOTHING is an arm in itself. Give a responsible guy a nuclear device, he won't use it so it won't be any harm. An object has no proper will. In a democracy people vote about big society debates. Gun ownership is a society debate. You claim the right to own a gun. Very well. I claim the right to not be surrounded by guns, it impacts my life. Then people choose, in Europe people chose to ban private gun ownership (except for hunting). And whatever you may say, gun is not a neutral object. Gun first purpose is to shoot a bullet. The only legitimate use I see is hunting, and shooting at the range(but then the gun stays at the range). And with the amount of irresponsible people I see everyday (and you can never be sure that licenses are only delivered to responsible people) I'm happy they do not own a gun. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You do not have the right to strip me of my rights. Your rights end at another man's. My owning a gun does not impact your life in any way. Your made up sorry excuse is just a desire to restrict the freedoms and rights of others in the guise of a right. There are two logical fallacies expressed in this post. The first is a strawman comparing a fist to a gun. It is illegal to use your fist to injure someone without a very good reason. It is also illegal to use your gun to injure someone. The two differences are that you can't regulate hands, people need them to wipe their ass, and because of the lethal nature of a gun there are two few "very good reasons" to use them to justify mass ownership and the problems that go along with them. The second fallacy is circular reasoning. This thread is asking should guns be legal to own. You can't cite their current legality as a reason for their legality.
Neither are strawmen. You don't understand the nature of rights. It's not the gun's fault that people are hurt by it. It is the operator. You are somehow under the impression that guns are only there for one thing, and that is for mass murder. You couldn't be farther from the truth. If you can't understand the very basic nature of rights then you ought well to study philosophy and social contracts again. Natural rights are those of life, liberty and property. Self defense is an inferred right as you are protecting your life. Liberty means I have the right to do anything I want as long as I am not negatively impacting another's right. Thats the whole "fist swinging" analogy. I don't infringe on any of your rights by owning a gun. You infringe on my right to life (self defense) liberty ( freedom to do what I choose) and property ( forcibly taking away my property) by your desire to ban guns.
Your argument basically comes down to "i dont know anything about guns and i'm scared of people with them so nobody should own them" Thats not argument enough to revoke freedoms from other people. Since liberty (freedom) is a natural right, the burden is on you to show why something should NOT be legal. "Well....well.... THEY COULD BE DANGEROUS!" isn't good enough.
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 00:14 Dizmaul wrote:On February 27 2012 20:59 CortoMontez wrote:
It is worth noting that the current fire-arm restrictions haven't even been in place for 20 years, and already guns are a rare sight in the media, with almost any gun related incident being reported on, even if the gun isn't fired. These stories are rarely seen more than once or twice a month; massively higher than even the accident rate with firearms in the US. I guess getting rid of a couple millions guns from people who don't want them is not that hard. Try taking away a couple hundred million guns from people that do... Like that other great American said in this thread, "If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first." Sorry, but you're not a great citizen if you think this. All he's really saying is that he'd be willing to shoot and kill law enforcement to defend illegal ownership of his guns if society decided to regulate and restrict them. People have defended illegal and immoral actions as patriotism before, and in almost all cases those people have been profoundly crazy. In effect he's saying he'd be willing to murder his fellow countrymen to defy the law were it passed. This is also a very dubious claim to make if you're trying to convince people you are a responsible gun owner.
The social contract that people make with a government implicitly grants the right to revolution if the charter of the government is broken. In our charter, some of people's natural rights are recognized in something called the bill of rights, and prevents the government from doing things to infringe upon them. Basically the authority and powers the government has is derived from our granting the right to rule, so long as they do so within the bounds that we set. If they break the charter or boundaries, they do not have the authority or power of law to do so and any actions taken on their part based upon operations outside of their powers is illegal in itself. THUS, making guns illegal is itself illegal. Them coming to seize my property is illegal. Robbers intent on depriving me of my rights will be treated all the same. It doesn't matter if they have a rap sheet as long as my arm or a shiny badge. You probably think it was good the waco and ruby ridge guys got snuffed by the government.
On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence. If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy
You would be right if the government's job was to protect us. Hint: it isn't. The judiciary has said so on multiple occasions. Further, look at the outline of the powers of the government in the constitution. It isn't their job to protect us at an individual level. We the people reserve that right.
On February 28 2012 12:49 Arthemesia wrote:
I think it's just a consideration of positives versus negatives. The negatives far outweigh the positives of being able to own and carry guns. I mean just having a gun for safety can be very dangerous. Guns aren't meant for safety they're meant for killing someone/something and I don't think the average decision making warrants putting that kind of responsibility in so many people's hands.
What? How is having a gun for safety dangerous? Guns are safer then swimming pools or cars. It is statistically shown that legal gun owners are far more law abiding then pretty much any other category of person. Owning a gun is life changing and makes you all the more responsible. By the way, the positives outweigh the negatives in terms of gun ownership and use. Annually guns are used far more often by to defend people and prevent crimes then they are by criminals to aid in the commission of a crime.
On February 29 2012 12:15 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 11:54 liberal wrote:On February 29 2012 11:45 Focuspants wrote:On February 29 2012 11:45 liberal wrote:
"You shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because you might decide to kill yourself" is an incredibly stupid argument. Seriously, it's very stupid. Its not necessarily you the gun owner who will kill yourself. Your wife, your kids, etc... can all use it. If my right to gun ownership makes it easier and more likely for my child or loved one to kill themself, I would reconsider owning one. Its not a stupid argument at all. Not if you lock the gun up. Anymore straw men? And let's not assume that every gun owner will have those people in their home. And we aren't arguing whether or not YOU WANT to own one. It's whether or not people have the right at all. When it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself with your gun, than you will need to defend a home invader with deadly force and succeed, statistically speaking, isnt it a better bet to not allow guns in a home? Logically, it makes sense that if youre on average causing more harm then doing good with one of your actions, you should change that action, no?
The funny thing is, among developed countries the homicide rate and suicide rate equate to about the same thing.
In fact, despite the fact that americans typically work longer hours with less time off then any other first world nation, have less access to mental health care, have a much larger rich / poor gap, and are generally under more stress then people in other nations, AND have access to firearms our suicide rate is much lower. So this argument that firearms cause a large suicide rate is false.
Lets look at Japan. High suicide rate, no guns. Japanese-Americans, with the same culture from home have statistically similar suicide rates, with the difference being that they use guns far more frequently.
|
On February 29 2012 06:29 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 14:00 TanTzoR wrote:Having done my 17 years of judo, taekwondo and muay thai I can stop someone with a knife. But I can't stop bullets. I'm pretty sure there would have been less victims if he went there with scissors u_u So what? The victims probably don't have the same amount of training, or alternatively, they could be trained in avoiding gunfire. You're also an idiot if you think that (non-combat) martial arts training will protect you from someone who really wants to kill you, as a fight is off to a bad start if you're hanging out with your friends when a knife slips into your back from the guy walking by. Still, that's not the point. The point is that if you want to kill someone, you'll find a way, regardless of what weapons are available.
There would have been one victim, then they would have run or stop him. They had more chances against a knife than a gun. Knife is a contact weapon.
|
On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy
I read a study back about 5 years ago, i looked for it but couldnt find the link for it sorry. but in that study it said something like less than 3% of all legal gun owners commit crimes with their firearms. the other 97% of crimes with firearms are done by illegal owners. (this was a study done years ago it maybe very wrong now but i highly doubt its that far off)
So you would make me suffer unable to go hunting for food to sustain myself and family all because less than 3% of gun crimes are commited by legal owners of firearms?
You must be 16-22 years of age, because your ignorance is astounding. taking away guns from people would cause more problems then it would fix. This wouldn't even take guns out of a criminals hands for one... you think that making all guns illegal makes them just go away? No, the law abiding citizens would lose their weapons. While criminals would still have guns... I can only see things getting much much worse this way.
P.S. I love hunting and not paying for meat(aside from the tags of course)
|
Japan says otherwise. They have had spree killers with knives before. If the user knows what they are doing, it is far easier to kill somebody with a knife then a handgun. Handguns poke tiny holes in things. Knives poke much larger ones.
|
On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote:
By the way, the positives outweigh the negatives in terms of gun ownership and use. Annually guns are used far more often by to defend people and prevent crimes then they are by criminals to aid in the commission of a crime.
Stats please? And from a serious institution, not gunffa.com.
|
On February 29 2012 17:11 Nazarid wrote:
So you would make me suffer unable to go hunting for food to sustain myself and family all because less than 3% of gun crimes are commited by legal owners of firearms?
I think we all agree about hunters. In Europe as well hunters are allowed hunting guns. So don't see your point.
|
On February 29 2012 13:14 xmaine wrote:
So because statistics show that you wont ever need a weapon to defend a home invader means that you shouldn't own a weapon?
People will have weapons regardless if it is legal or not. So then law abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves while the criminals will have open season on these people.
Law enforcement does not protect people. They only come in after something happens. They don't prevent these things from happening.
And yes, you have a choice to not own a gun. But you shouldn't punish law abiders just because others misuse their weapons.
Yeah I guess that explains why there are much greater instances of gun crime in the US than many countries that don't have guns...
Don't know what kind of place the US is, but where I live when burglars come into your home 99% of the time it is to steal your shit, not rape and kill your family. I've been home during a home invasion before, the guy was trying to break through a window. I went downstairs and yelled at the guy, he legged it literally instantly, he couldn't have bailed faster if he had the runs. Most burglars aren't willing to deal with confrontation when they can just as easily steal shit from the vacant house next door. And unless you consider yourself James Bond, I'd say there is about a 50/50 chance of you getting killed yourself should you choose to engage a thief in a gun fight. But hey if you are willing to chance it best of luck to you...
Maybe I have it wrong though, and in the US there really are lots of cases of family hunting, home invading gun wielding rapists.
|
On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +When it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself with your gun, than you will need to defend a home invader with deadly force and succeed, statistically speaking, isnt it a better bet to not allow guns in a home? Logically, it makes sense that if youre on average causing more harm then doing good with one of your actions, you should change that action, no? The funny thing is, among developed countries the homicide rate and suicide rate equate to about the same thing. In fact, despite the fact that americans typically work longer hours with less time off then any other first world nation, have less access to mental health care, have a much larger rich / poor gap, and are generally under more stress then people in other nations, AND have access to firearms our suicide rate is much lower. So this argument that firearms cause a large suicide rate is false. Lets look at Japan. High suicide rate, no guns. Japanese-Americans, with the same culture from home have statistically similar suicide rates, with the difference being that they use guns far more frequently.
This is a terrible point and it proves NOTHING, just because Japan has a higher suicide rate and has "no guns" as you put it, doesn't mean that these points are related, of course you would pick a country with a high suicide rate. I could say that Australia has a lower suicide rate than America and no guns as though that shuts down your point but the fact is your connection between these two events is completely unfounded.
Also if you actually taken the time to read his post he said it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself compared to defending against a home invader, he did not say it caused a large suicide rate at all, if you can't understand this simple point, I don't think you should really be arguing about something such as gun control.
If his statistics are true, it seems that the argument that you are better off defending yourself with a gun from home invaders is false, as it is more likely that someone you know will get hurt instead. I am not denying that there are plenty of other reasons to own a gun, but in this case, perhaps they are not the answer?
|
On February 29 2012 17:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote:
By the way, the positives outweigh the negatives in terms of gun ownership and use. Annually guns are used far more often by to defend people and prevent crimes then they are by criminals to aid in the commission of a crime.
Stats please? And from a serious institution, not gunffa.com.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
On February 29 2012 17:40 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote:When it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself with your gun, than you will need to defend a home invader with deadly force and succeed, statistically speaking, isnt it a better bet to not allow guns in a home? Logically, it makes sense that if youre on average causing more harm then doing good with one of your actions, you should change that action, no? The funny thing is, among developed countries the homicide rate and suicide rate equate to about the same thing. In fact, despite the fact that americans typically work longer hours with less time off then any other first world nation, have less access to mental health care, have a much larger rich / poor gap, and are generally under more stress then people in other nations, AND have access to firearms our suicide rate is much lower. So this argument that firearms cause a large suicide rate is false. Lets look at Japan. High suicide rate, no guns. Japanese-Americans, with the same culture from home have statistically similar suicide rates, with the difference being that they use guns far more frequently. This is a terrible point and it proves NOTHING, just because Japan has a higher suicide rate and has "no guns" as you put it, doesn't mean that these points are related, of course you would pick a country with a high suicide rate. I could say that Australia has a lower suicide rate than America and no guns as though that shuts down your point but the fact is your connection between these two events is completely unfounded. Also if you actually taken the time to read his post he said it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself compared to defending against a home invader, he did not say it caused a large suicide rate at all, if you can't understand this simple point, I don't think you should really be arguing about something such as gun control. If his statistics are true, it seems that the argument that you are better off defending yourself with a gun from home invaders is false, as it is more likely that someone you know will get hurt instead. I am not denying that there are plenty of other reasons to own a gun, but in this case, perhaps they are not the answer?
If you take the time to read my post, I said that AMONG DEVELOPED COUNTRIES THE HOMICIDE RATE AND SUICIDE RATE ARE RELATIVELY EQUAL. And then went on to point out that culturally speaking guns have no impact on suicide. Japanese people - who culturally have high suicide rates - do not commit more suicides because they have access to guns.
Further why bring up suicides at all if not to claim that the gun helps in raising suicide rates? Even science is split on this subject. Some studies show that guns do create more suicides, and others show that there is a strong displacement. That is, when guns are not available the overall suicide rate is not impacted.
And his statistics are not. I'm willing to bet he would cite kellermann or kellermann derived stats which are the only ones that show a net gun negative....because they only measure a defensive gun use when you commit justifiable homicide.
On February 29 2012 17:35 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 13:14 xmaine wrote:
So because statistics show that you wont ever need a weapon to defend a home invader means that you shouldn't own a weapon?
People will have weapons regardless if it is legal or not. So then law abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves while the criminals will have open season on these people.
Law enforcement does not protect people. They only come in after something happens. They don't prevent these things from happening.
And yes, you have a choice to not own a gun. But you shouldn't punish law abiders just because others misuse their weapons. Yeah I guess that explains why there are much greater instances of gun crime in the US than many countries that don't have guns... Don't know what kind of place the US is, but where I live when burglars come into your home 99% of the time it is to steal your shit, not rape and kill your family. I've been home during a home invasion before, the guy was trying to break through a window. I went downstairs and yelled at the guy, he legged it literally instantly, he couldn't have bailed faster if he had the runs. Most burglars aren't willing to deal with confrontation when they can just as easily steal shit from the vacant house next door. And unless you consider yourself James Bond, I'd say there is about a 50/50 chance of you getting killed yourself should you choose to engage a thief in a gun fight. But hey if you are willing to chance it best of luck to you... Maybe I have it wrong though, and in the US there really are lots of cases of family hunting, home invading gun wielding rapists.
You'd be surprised. A lot of times doing nothing leads to people being raped, passivity leads to emboldening the criminal. In America, when burglars just want your shit they wait until you are not home. Hot burglaries tend to end in murders, kidnappings, or rapes. This is why in America the law is structured so that you have the presumption that people are coming to harm you or your family and the subsequent castle doctrine legislation in response to the trend.
Then, it has been found that resisting with a firearm leads to a 50% lower likelihood of being injured then being passive, and 67% less likely to be injured when compared against resisting with other methods (like those less lethal weapons people were advocating a few pages back).
|
Everyone wants to speak in platitudes, but no one once to face reality. Here's some for you. You are picking up your child from elementary school. Elementary schools are gun-free zones. A mass murderer knows that the average citizen will obey this law, and knows that if he were to go on a killing spree here, he could probably do it without interference from an armed citizen. When he strikes, 32 people lie dead on the pavement outside the school before police ever arrive. Your right to carry could have prevented this. If you don't like the analogy apply it to a sports stadium, where the nearest armed police is relatively miles away in the crowd. What if a drunk idiot pulls out a weapon that he carried in illegally and starts spraying the crowd. Wouldn't having a properly trained, armed citizen right there beside him to blow him away help this situation?
I would like to reference a town only 40 minutes from where I live. The neighboring town to Mr. Bitter's hometown in fact:
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
by Chuck Baldwin
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
|
On February 29 2012 19:03 StarStrider wrote:
Everyone wants to speak in platitudes, but no one once to face reality. Here's some for you. You are picking up your child from elementary school. Elementary schools are gun-free zones. A mass murderer knows that the average citizen will obey this law, and knows that if he were to go on a killing spree here, he could probably do it without interference from an armed citizen. When he strikes, 32 people lie dead on the pavement outside the school before police ever arrive. Your right to carry could have prevented this. If you don't like the analogy apply it to a sports stadium, where the nearest armed police is relatively miles away in the crowd. What if a drunk idiot pulls out a weapon that he carried in illegally and starts spraying the crowd. Wouldn't having a properly trained, armed citizen right there beside him to blow him away help this situation?
Again and again. People in Europe don't have guns...so this situation is WAYYYY less likely to arrive in the first place. It's YOUR reality because the US didn't have the courage to progressively ban private gun ownership. So the guy kills a kid then you brave citizen shoot him. Great, one kid is dead. It wouldn't have happened in the first place if the criminal didn't have a gun.
Like I said in Europe only big criminals have guns. And they don't go on killing spree for no reason. They will shoot only if it's in their financial interest. Basically it's criminals vs criminals, criminals vs police.
Again, 70 school shooting since 2000 in the US, 11 in Europe. 11 last year in the US, to 0 in Europe.
Ofc you'll find an example of a case were a murder could have been stopped if his victims had a gun. Bur you need to observe on a larger scale.
|
Fundamentally, an unarmed populace makes government easier.
That government can become sloppy, authoritarian ('tyrranical' in the words of the US' founding fathers) and its populace has no option but to submit.
The worst problem with the United States is not that its people have rights, it's that its people do not understand why they have those rights.
People who do not understand their rights will
a) not defend them vigorously
b) will misuse and abuse them
c) finally wind up in the situations the rights were supposed to preclude.
Case in point: the recent case where the 5th circuit appeals ruled in favour of a man who was jailed for refusing to decrypt his hard drive, pleading the 5th. Cue howls of uninformed bleating from the people of the US who thought this was a blow to security, rather than protection of the very fundamentals of justice and constitutional rights.
Those same constitutional rights that are essentially all that stand between a modern society and the Inquisition's witchhunts. And believe me, those in senior law enforcement would be more than happy to invoke the powers of the Inquisition, and far more. If you don't believe me, well, go watch some interviews with them.
|
On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote:
Responsibly used? Self defense. The same way a country uses an army. You don't go use it to assault people, you use it to defend your own country and your friends.
This is so funny, coming from an american that wants to keep his right to own guns. In fact it's SO funny I think it made my day! Self respect, man... Self respect.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On February 29 2012 19:37 tiaz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:11 dogabutila wrote:
Responsibly used? Self defense. The same way a country uses an army. You don't go use it to assault people, you use it to defend your own country and your friends. This is so funny, coming from an american that wants to keep his right to own guns. In fact it's SO funny I think it made my day! Self respect, man... Self respect.
That is actually hilarious, I agree. This thread is still worth something after all, and if it's only a laugh.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The argument for a general ban of guns based on the premise that a certain few will be able to use guns criminally or irresponsibly in contrast with the responsible ownership of the wider majority is not a strong argument in the political system of the United States of America. Responsible gun owners will demand overwhelming evidence of irresponsible ownership because their gun ownership had no direct involvement in crime or accidents. This philosophy to governance can certainly change.
As for gun violence, it is expected that freedom will offer the chance to do harm and invariably some individuals will elect to do so. The laws and the justice system of the United States will take some measures to promote responsible use of freedoms and will retroactively punish irresponsibility. All injuries, loss of life, and other tragedies are "acceptable" consequences of the freedoms of the people.
|
On February 29 2012 19:23 TanTzoR wrote:
Again and again. People in Europe don't have guns...so this situation is WAYYYY less likely to arrive in the first place. It's YOUR reality because the US didn't have the courage to progressively ban private gun ownership. So the guy kills a kid then you brave citizen shoot him. Great, one kid is dead. It wouldn't have happened in the first place if the criminal didn't have a gun.
Like I said in Europe only big criminals have guns. And they don't go on killing spree for no reason. They will shoot only if it's in their financial interest. Basically it's criminals vs criminals, criminals vs police.
Again, 70 school shooting since 2000 in the US, 11 in Europe. 11 last year in the US, to 0 in Europe.
Ofc you'll find an example of a case were a murder could have been stopped if his victims had a gun. Bur you need to observe on a larger scale.
Great. You're in the UK? So you're not allowed to own private firearms. You say that only big crime has access to firearms, and street thugs don't? So tell that to the guy who has a gun to your wife's head and is about to rape her. Just try to talk him out of it, reason with him that he's small time and shouldn't have access to guns. Tell him how it's not worth it. Nope. If something like that happens you'll be wishing you lived in a country that didn't make it illegal to use deadly force to protect the life of you and your loved ones.
And how did those 11 school shootings occur in Europe if guns are banned eh? Murders by firearm are something that will continue to happen whether in a state where private ownership is legal or in a state where it is banned. Yes, there are more guns available here to a kid when he flips his lid and wants to waste someone. That's irresponsible gun ownership if he can get his hands on one. Should all citizens lose their right to own one when a few assholes don't properly secure their arms? No way. And if he got it from the black market, well, as in the UK, that doesn't disappear with outlawing private ownership. If anything it gets much more common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
